Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some
> > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no
> > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like
> > to get at least the others considered.
>
> Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking
> mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so:
>
> - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it
>   as-is. Your decision if you want to respin.

I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell.

> - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path
>   Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc.

Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit
more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so
they're not holding up the others.

> - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too,
>   this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the
>   __mmu_notifier function

To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also
wrapped around invalidate_range_end? From my understanding of pte
zapping that makes sense, but I'm definitely not well-versed enough
for that.

>   Can you respin?

Will do.

>   I will propose preloading the map in another patch
> - #5 is already applied in -rc

Yup, I'll drop that one.

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch